— THE EVOLUTION DECEIT —

3 - Evolution And Ideologies

"The law of nature must
take its course in the survival
of the fittest." - Heinrich Himmler, SS
Chef

"To Charles Darwin,
from a true devotee of him" - From the introductory
note of the second printing of Das Kapital
which Karl Marx wanted to dedicate to
Darwin"

This is not an evil
tendency in business. It is merely the
working-out of a law of nature and a law of God. - John D.Rockefeller The biggest capitalist
in the American history

Darwin’s theory helped Karl Marx immensely
who was striving to bring an anti-religionist explanation to the
whole universe. It was to such an extent that Marx wanted to
dedicate his most important book Das Capital to Darwin.
According to Engels, the biggest comrade of Marx, Origin of
Species was a work almost as important as Das Capital. The
importance given to evolution by the two founders of communism
caused all the succeeding leftist actions to accept and defend
this theory as an absolute reality.

The information gathered in the previous sections has revealed the
importance of the theory of evolution in terms of the war waged against
religion in Europe and the entrenchment of the New Secular Order
established in furtherance of this war.

Yet the New Secular Order was not a whole in itself; it had its
fractions and variations. Religion was now replaced by the "human
reason" as the sole guide to truth. However human reason was a relative
notion which consequently could diverge in different, even opposite
ways. For this reason, various "systems of thought", in other words
ideologies developed within the New Secular Order.

In some aspects, these ideologies differed from each other to a great
extent. For instance, socialism and liberalism seemed to be in symmetric
antimony. Yet, these ideologies that were thought to be so incompatible
with each other as to cause wars were, in one sense, absolutely the
same. Since they were the "outputs" of the New Secular Order, they were
strictly attached to its basic intellectual sources.

As indicated at the beginning, one of the most important of these
intellectual sources was the theory of evolution. All of the ideologies
of the New Secular Order claimed to guide people to truth through "human
reason" and God-revealed information had to be disregarded for the human
reason to be esteemed. Therefore, people had to forget that a Creator
existed and that they had to live according to the rules and purposes
set by Him. They had to explain their existence in terms of "not being
created". Albeit through forgery, evolution was the only alternative
that could introduce some kind of an explanation for this cause.

Therefore, theory of evolution was warmly welcomed by all ideologies
of the New Secular Order. Moreover, these ideologies assumed an
important responsibility of leading people to believe that they ought to
defend the theory of evolution to sustain their cause.

This is the main reason why the theory of evolution is still being
preached today to the societies with great perseverance. Most of the
contemporary societies are governed by ideologies produced and,
therefore, based on the justification provided by the New Secular
Order.

Now, let’s analyze these ideologies respectively:

Imperialism, Racism and "Taming of the
Uncivilized Races"

At the time Darwin’s Origin of Species was published, the
"white-man" was rapidly going ahead with expanding its rule to other
continents and civilizations. Together with the other European states,
particularly England and France were doing their best to colonize a
major part of South Asia, almost the whole of Africa, and some part of
Latin America. Meanwhile, the "white man" was still carrying on the
massacre of the Indians in North America. USA was expanding towards West
by killing the natives of the lands it is located on.

Briefly, in that era, mainly the second half of the 19th century, the
world was suffering from the severest form of imperialism. The West was
ransacking other civilizations using the technology it had attained.

Yet the West felt the necessity to find an explanation to justify its
deeds just like every villain does. They could freely kill the African
or North American natives, drive them out of their home lands and
confiscate their lands. All were being recorded in history and they very
well knew that they would be referred to as burglars and even plunderers
in history if they could not bring an explanation to justify all they
have done.

What kind of an explanation could be found to justify imperialism?

Intrinsically this question had emerged at the beginning of the 16th
century and brought its explanation along with it. This was actually the
explanation introduced during the time Spain began to colonize America
after its conquest by Christopher Columbus in 1492. It relied on a quite
simple rationale: Natives were not actual human beings, but an advanced
animal species.

This assertion was first put forward by Christopher Columbus and his
men and then defended by the Spanish "Conquistadors" (Conquerors) who
undertook to colonize South America. However, Catholic Church had stood
against these secular raiders who were only after new lands, gold and
fame. This was primarily manifested in the defense of Bishop of Chiapas,
Bartolome de Las Casas, announcing that the natives were "actual humans"
in response to the assertions stating that "the natives were an animal
species" which were put forward by the colonizers stepping on the new
lands along with Columbus. For this reason, Las Casas had started to be
referred to as the "apostle of the natives". Later in 1537, Pope Paul
III had cursed the colonizer violence in his decree called Sublimis
Deus and announced that Indians were actual human beings (veros
homines) and despite the impudence of some who degraded them, they
were human beings competent to be endowed by faith in God.

However, the Church had lost all of its authority over "worldly
affairs" with the establishment of the New Secular Order. For this
reason, the Church could not firmly oppose to the 19th. century
colonization and announce openly that the exploited people were also
actual human beings (veros homines). It did not make much difference
even if it did. Imperialism was determined to abuse the natives and
regard them as an "animal species" to justify their deeds.

At this point, Darwinism offered a big opportunity to the
imperialists by providing a "scientific" basis to the assertion that the
maligned natives were an "animal species". Darwin was claiming that man
had evolved from ape-like ancestors. Moreover, as stated in the long
introduction part of Origin of Species, there were some "races
favored by nature" in the evolution process. This favored race was the
"white-man". Indians, Africans and natives all around the world were
constituting the uncivilized races within the evolution process. These
were not even homo sapiens. The taming of these uncivilized
races, misusing them as slaves and confiscating their lands were as
legitimate as the taming and using of the apes or other animals by the
homo sapiens. White man even claimed that by introducing the
"advanced" culture to the "primitive" races, they were doing good to
them by helping out to their evolution.

This theory that developed as a consequence of the application of
Darwinistic theory of evolution to societies was later called as Social
Darwinism and became both the major argument of justification of
Imperialism and the biggest keystone of racism. According to the Indian
anthropologist Vidyarthi, "His (Darwin) theory of the survival of the
fittest was warmly welcomed by the social scientists of the day, and
they believed mankind had achieved various levels of evolution
culminating in the white man’s civilization. By the second half of the
nineteenth century racism was accepted as fact by the vast majority of
western scientists."

The biggest leader of Social Darwinism was Darwin himself. In his
book, Descent of Man, he made many assumptions regarding "the
obviousness of the inequality among human races". He had clearly
expressed his racist biases while defining the natives of Tierre del
Fuego which he met during his long voyage in 1871. Darwin depicted the
natives as humans "wholly nude, submerged in dyes, eating what they find
just like wild animals, uncontrolled, cruel to everybody out of their
tribe, taking pleasure in torturing their enemies, offering bloody
sacrifices, killing their children, ill-treating their wives, full of
awkward superstitions". However, W.P. Snow, who had been at the same
region a decade ago described the same natives as "good-looking, strong,
fond of their children, having inventive handicrafts, bearing the notion
of private ownership for some goods and accepting the authority of the
elder women in the community." The reason why Darwin humiliated these
people in such an exaggerated way was his desire to define them as a
"race that had fallen astern in the evolution process"

Because of the justification Darwin has endowed to imperialist
racism, the famous Chinese scientist Hsu refers to Darwin as "a
gentleman scientist of the Victorian Era, and an establishment member of
a society that sent gunboats to forcibly import opium into China, all in
the name of competition (in free trade) and survival of the fittest."

Social Darwinism provided grounds to the imperialists and racists not
only in England, but also in other countries. This is why it had
expanded immediately. The president of USA, Theodore Roosevelt was one
of the primary advocates of Darwinism. Roosevelt was the foremost
defender and procurer of the ethnic catharsis operation practiced to the
Indians under the term of "deportation". In his four volume work
entitled The Winning of The West, he had set the ideology of the
massacre straight, and maintained that a "racial war" had to finish with
the Indians was inevitable. His greatest support was Darwinism which
gave him the opportunity to define natives as a "primitive species".
Unsurprisingly, in that period, all the agreements made with Indians
were violated as was foreseen by Roosevelt and a so-called legitimate
basis was provided by the "primitive species" fallacy of Darwin. In
1871, the Congress pushed aside all the agreements made with Indians and
decided to drive them away to the dead lands where they would wait for
death. Since the other side was not considered to be "human beings", how
worthy an agreement made with them could be…

Theodore Roosevelt, maintained that a racial war to the finish with
the Indians was inevitable and represented the culminating achievement
of the spread of the English-speaking peoples over the world. One of
the leading advocates of Anglo-Saxon racism, the American Protestant
bishop Josiah Strong was making use of the same convictions. He once
wrote:

Then will the world enter upon a new stage of its history - the
final competiton of races for which the Anglo-Saxon is being
schooled. If I do not read amiss, this powerful race will move down
upon Mexico, down upon Central and South America, out upon the
islands of the sea, over upon Africa and beyond. And can anyone
doubt that the result of this competition will be "survival of the
fittest"?

Antagonists of the blacks came first among the racists who sought to
justify their cause through Social Darwinism. Racist theories that
graded races and ranked the "white race" above all others while
presenting the black race to be the most "primitive", embraced the
theory of evolution with great zeal. One of the leading
evolutionist-racist theoreticians, Henry Fairfield Osborn wrote in his
article headlined "The Evolution of the Human Races" that average IQ
level of a black man could only be equal to eleven years old Homo
sapiens. According to this outlook, the Negroes were not even
considered as Homo sapiens, that is modern men. Being one of the
latter defenders of this view, Carletoun Coon asserted in his book
titled "Origin of Species" published in 1962 that the black race
and the white race were two distinct "species" set apart from each other
in the Homo erectus age. According to Daniel Gasman, after this
distinction, the white race went fore-ahead. The defenders of the
segregation carried out against the Negroes in U.S.A made the most of
this "scientific" argument bestowed to them by the theory of evolution
until recently.

Another country where Social Darwinism flourished was Germany. Here,
the famous biologist Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919) had the biggest part in
the development of racism based on Darwinism who also had led the way
for the discovery of the fossil of Java man. Being quite impressed by
Darwin’s studies, Haeckel made an unpretentious contribution to
Darwinism by advancing the theory summarized as Ontogeny
Recapitulates Phylogeny which suggested that the embryos of mammals
reflected the evolution process. (As we had mentioned at the beginning
of the book, the falsehood of this theory was realized definitely years
later and moreover, it was revealed that Haeckel made forgery on the
sketches he made.)

However, Haeckel, who could be considered as the "Representative of
Darwinism in Germany" was extremely influential. Haeckel established a
society under the name of "Monist League". Monism was a different
version of atheist materialism. The mode Haeckel produced gave way to
the same effect: the reinforcement of racism. According to Daniel Gasman
"He became one of Germany's major ideologists for racism, nationalism
and imperialism". Having arisen in the 20th. century on the heritage of
evolutionists like Haeckel, two racists regimes, that is, fascism and
one of its versions, Nationalist Socialism took Darwinistic thought as
reference to themselves.

Fascism And "The Life Struggle Among Nations"

Imperialist racism paved the ground for fascist racism by presenting the
human races as "species" at various stages of the evolution process.
Then adding the notions of "life struggle among species" and "selection
of the weak" upon this racist basis, fascism tried to justify the wars,
occupations, and massacres.

Being the greatest source of inspiration for
fascism, Nietzche had taken up the theory of evolution
personally and interpreted the "superior-man" he formulated as
the highest stage of evolution. He defined war as the motivating
force of development setting out from the notion of life
struggle in evolution. These ideas were to be the starting point
for all fascists following Nietzsche.

This Social Darwinistic Fascist interpretation which had great impact on
the development of German racism and Nazism took the first important
steps with Friedrich Nietzsche’s appropriation of Darwin. Nietzsche
regarded most people as miserables carrying the "soul of a slave" and
considered only a few among them to be "superior humans". The same
distinction was also true for the races; most of the races were
miserables, only one of them was a "superior-race". He also believed
that a permanent state of war and struggle was necessary for these
superior qualities to emanate. He had adopted the concept of "life
struggle" to history and placed these wars, the concept of "purification
of race", and the thought of "cleansing" of the lower races on a
"scientific" basis.

After Nietzsche, perceiving war not as an essential wickedness but as
a good providing the development of races and nations became one of the
basic beliefs of every kind of racism and nationalism. A.Senel, in his
book Race and the Thought of Racism (Irk ve Irkçilik Düsüncesi)
writes the following on this point: "The social Darwinists gave priority
to ‘life struggle and selection’ in the relations between people and
societies. Like Nietzsche, they sublimated war which they regarded as
the expression of life struggle in international relations. They viewed
war as a way of creating superior nations and superior races."

It was made possible by Darwinism to shift from the Christian thought
viewing people coming from the same ancestors as brothers and approving
the war only when there is no other way to forestall wickedness, to
fascism perceiving war as a value on its own. Indeed, when looked at the
theoreticians of the fascist ideology, it can be observed that all had
made attributes to Darwinism.

One of those was the German historian Heinrich von Treitschke who was
one of the most important leading theoreticians of the Nazi ideology.
Saying that "the nations could prosper only by conducting a severe
rivalry with each other similar to Darwin’s life struggle", Treitschke
put forward that this necessitated a permanent state of war. While
sublimating war, he was careful enough to arrange for a hierarchy of
races. Treitschke explained the evolutionary scheme he drew as follows:
"Yellow nations are deprived of art faculties and an understanding of
political freedom. The black races are destined to serve to the white
men and be subject to the disgust of the white men until the end…
(because) no culture can exist without servants".

This ideological substructure offered great inspiration to Hitler. On
top of the most important sources supporting Hitler’s theories on "the
superiority of Aryan race" was again coming Darwin’s theory. The Nazi
leader believed that "the superiority of the Aryan race" was ordained by
"nature". In his famous book My Battle he wrote: "...The noblest
of all human stocks was the Nordic race… History would culminate in a
new millennial empire of unparalleled splendor, based on a new racial
hierarchy ordained by nature itself." Moreover, according to an
interpretation, he was inspired from the Darwinistic idea of "life
struggle" imposed on him by Haeckel while choosing the name "My Battle"
for his book.

Evolution was one of the most important elements of Hitler’s struggle
against Christianity. Daniel Gasman states as follows in his book The
Scientific Origins of National Socialism:

Hitler stressed and singled out the idea of biological evolution as
the most forceful weapon against traditional religion and he
repeatedly condemned Christianity for its opposition to the teaching
of evolution… For Hitler, evolution was the hallmark of modern
science and culture, and he defended its velocity as tenaciously as
Haeckel.

While saying "…Take away the Nordic Germans and nothing remains but the
dance of apes…", Hitler depended upon the Darwinistic ideas which
concluded that the man had evolved from apes and some still could be
maintaining this "ape" status.

Except Hitler, oral and verbal expressions of a number of Nazi elite
from Heinrich Himmler to Joseph Mengele, made attributions to the
principle that "the strong survived and the weak died". Having been
developed setting out from this natural selection principle, the concept
of "eugenie" depended upon the principle of the selection of the weak
and defected from the race. For this purpose, the Nazis established
"reproduction farms" with healthy-young men and women who have all the
characteristics of the Aryan race. On the other hand, with a law passed
in 1933, they castrated 350 thousand mental patients, 30 thousand
gypsies and hundreds of black children. A nazi officer told that
national socialism was no different than applied-biology.

Benito Mussolino also took the Darwinistic concepts as reference for
the imperialist Italy he was trying to establish. He particularly tried
to rationalize Ethiopia occupation within the principle of hierarchy
among races. According to Mussolini, the Ethiopians were inferior people
because they were from the black race and they should be proud of being
governed by such a superior race like Italians. In public utterances
Mussolini repeatedly used the Darwinian catchwords. For him, the
reluctance of England to engage in war only proved the evolutionary
decadence of the British Empire.

By the end of World War II, the right wing representatives of Social
Darwinism also disappeared in history. However the racist interpretation
of Darwinism still survived often under the name of nationalism. The
nationalist ideas which still have great popularity worldwide, again
inevitably depend on Darwin’s theory. Many people who are already taken
by this ideology may not be aware of this; but the vanguards of the
ideology are well aware of this and they continuously try to keep the
concept of "life struggle" upright-even if they do not mention Darwin’s
name.

. . .

Marxism And "The Basis Of Class Struggle

In Respect Of Natural Sciences"

Further than imperialism, racism and fascism, Marxism was definitely the
ideology which was based on the theory of evolution in the most evident
and open manner.

Karl Marx’s family was originally Jewish but they had accepted
Protestantism during Marx's childhood and educated him as a Christian.
However young Marx’s ideas changed rapidly in the German schools where
atheism was prevailing. He abandoned his religious beliefs in a short
while and moreover, he became an ardent adversary of religion. In his
teens he used to say "my purpose is to dethrone God". He also had a
wayfarer which he thought was symbolic for this purpose: dating from
that period, his youthful poems in adoration of "Oulanem"- a ritualistic
name for Satan.

Marx adopted the dialectic developed by Hegel, who had profound
supremacy on German thought in that period, to materialism and founded
dialectical materialism, or scientific socialism by other means. He
devoted his whole life to develop this scientific nationalism with the
intellectual and financial support he received from his best friend
Engels. He left behind a sophisticated ideology which explained, or
better to say, supposed that it did, the history of all humanity.

Marx based the development of history on economy. The society was
undergoing various stages in history and the factor assigning these
stages was the change in the production means and relations. Economy was
determining the rest. Within this ideology, religion was defined as a
tale invented in the name of economic interests. In this vein, religion
was developed by the dominant classes to be able to pacify the classes
they suppressed and it was the "opium of people".

Marx also thought that historical societies succeeded each other
within a developmental process. Slavery society had transformed into the
feudal society, feudal society to the capitalist society. Finally, a
socialist society would be instituted by means of a revolution and this
would be the highest stage of evolution attained. Briefly, Marx’s views
were evolutionist even before Darwin published the Origin of Species.

However Marx and Engels were having difficulty in explaining only the
question of how the living things had come into existence. Because
unless there was a theory explaining the existence of the living things
on the basis of "not being created", it would be impossible to claim
that religion was a fabricated opium and to base the entire history upon
matter.

The explanation Marx awaited came from Darwin. Marx understood the
significance of Origin of Species when he first took the book in
his hands. In the letter he wrote to Engels on 19th of December, 1860,
for Darwin's book, he said "this is the book which includes the natural
historical basis of our views". In the letter he wrote to Lasalle on
16th of January, 1861, he said: "Darwin’s book is a great work. It
provides the basis for class struggle in respect of natural sciences."
Marx showed his sympathy to Darwin by dedicating his great work Das
Capital to him. He wrote as follows in his handwriting in the German
edition of the book: "To Charles Darwin, from a true devotee of him,
Karl Marx."

The big comrade of Marx, Engels stated his admiration of Darwin as
follows: "Nature operates not metaphysically, but dialectically.
Darwin’s name should be remembered in the first place in relation to
this." Engels admired Darwin as to equalize him with Marx and said,
"Just as Darwin discovered the law of evolution in organic nature, so
Marx discovered the law of evolution in humanity."

The theory of evolution, exalted so much by the two founders of
Communism, was naturally accepted fervently by their followers. Every
communist regime or movement wherever in the world supported Darwinism
or Neo-Darwinism till the end and assumed it as one of the corner stones
of its own intellectual structure.

Undoubtedly, one of the most famous and absolutely the most bloody
comrades was Joseph Stalin. Stalin had attended a Christian school in
his childhood during Czar’s reign. He was a faithful Christian in his
school years. Yet, one day he read a book and his whole life changed.
The book was the Origin of the Species. After adopting atheism, he
enlisted to the communist party in a short time. During his power
costing to the life of nearly 60 million people, he paid a special
attention to the propaganda of evolution. It was written as follows in
his autobiography: "There are three things that we do to disabuse the
minds of our seminary students of the myth that the world was created in
six days. We had to teach them the age of the earth, the geologic
origin, and Darwin’s teachings."

Being a shallow version of Marxism and aiming to establish the
socialist order not by revolution but by democracy, Social Democracy is
also based on Darwinism. The distinction between Communists and Social
Democrats depends on the different interpretation of dialectics and
theory of evolution in theoretical terms. In the divorce years, the
communists claimed that thesis and anti-thesis would cause a synthesis
by conflicting while Social Democrats affirmed that synthesis might be
attained by reaching consensus through thesis and antithesis. The
evolution interpretations of two parties were quite different.
Communists were referring to the ‘mutation’ concept in evolution and
corresponded the revolution to it. Social Darwinists, on the other hand,
defended that the evolution process would develop by stages without
these kind of "leaps", and therefore socialism would be attained by
stages without any need for revolutions.

Consequently, considering all these, it is possible to draw such a
conclusion; the theory of evolution plays a relentless role in the
philosophical basis of all kinds of socialist movements. Therefore,
every leftist movement or regime is bound to accept evolution and make
the society accept it as well in order to provide intellectual support
and justification for itself.

This situation negotiates the leftists with the rightists which they
claim to be their antagonists. Because evolution provides a strong basis
for racism and fascism as well as for socialism. Although these
ideologies may conflict with each other on certain issues, they are
reach to a certain consensus when evolution is at hand. Because both of
them are by-products of the New Secular Order whose biological basis is
provided by evolution.

Moreover, by-products of the new secular order are not limited with
left or extreme right. There is also the ‘center’.

Capitalism, Globalism and "The Market Where
Only the Strongest Win"

The two ideologies we have mentioned so far, that is, fascism and
Marxism were actually by-products of the New Secular Order. Yet, the
main ideological course of the New Secular Order has always been
political and economic liberalism. The other two, that is, fascism and
Marxism were only born and developed out of a reaction to this main
course. Today they have already fulfilled their mission. Even though
they continue to exist in the New Secular Order and take their shares
from the "pie" of the order, the sovereignty of political and economic
liberalism, in other words capitalism and its political order have been
firmly affirmed.

This sovereignty was introduced by Francis Fukuyama only a few years
ago as a ‘global victory’ and was even interpreted as ‘the end of
history’. Today, Fukuyama’s thesis is regarded to be slightly
farfetched, yet it is evident that capitalism has become a common
identity for different civilizations in the current world system by
excelling its rivals. Likewise, it is surrounding the world by utmost
speed through the period of ‘globalization’.

The most important component of this global "conquest" of Capitalism
is the "capitalist mentality" rather than corporations, landmarks,
hamburgers or computers. The most important constituent of the
capitalist mentality is individualism. The anticipated global victory of
capitalism primarily required that people should deem themselves not as
part of a community or society, but as individuals standing on their own
and earning their own lives.

And capitalism needs Darwinism to justify and maintain
individualism.

Malachi Martin, one of the historians of the University of Vatican,
divides the elite that have devoted themselves to the global victory of
capitalism into two: Internationalists and transnationalists.
Internationalists are the political bureaucrats whose activities center
around the development of commercial relations between the nations or
between blocks of nations. Transnationalists are strong businessmen
trying to spread the power of their corporations to all of the other
nations. According to Martin, the motto of the transnationalists was set
out most clearly by Montagu Norman who served as Governor of Bank of
England from 1920 to 1924: "The hegemony of world finance", declared
Norman, "should reign supreme over everyone, everywhere, as one whole
supernational mechanism."(30) This principle was expressed in a more
frank and direct way by Meyer Amschel Rothschild, the founder of the
Jewish finance dynasty, Rotschilds; "Give me the power to control a
nation’s money, and I care not who writes his laws."

Martin stresses by examples that there is a very slight distinction
between the internationalists and the transnationalists. Many
internationalist bureaucrats emerge as a transnationalist on the top of
a company or the other way round becomes to be the case. Those who are
at the top of American state mechanisms; CIA chiefs, ministries of
foreign affairs, National Security Advisors are in the executive
committee of the corporations operating for the global victory of
capitalism either before or after their current posts.

And Martin demonstrates the common point of those two groups working
for the global victory of capitalism: they are both "socio-political
Darwinists". Martin explains what this means as follows:

"Both of these globalist groups operate on the same fundamental
assumptions about the meaning of human society today. Both agree on
the face of it that the most important single trait that pervades
the life of all nations is interdependence. And both agree that
interdependence is a progressive function of evolutionary progress.
Evolutionary, as in Darwin."

In other words, these two groups working for the global victory of
capitalism transfer the concepts of development and progress to the
sociopolitical world and affirm that corporations and nations are in
such a period of progression. The way leading to progression is Darwin's
progression theory advanced for the biological world; a world in which
the strong win and the weak disappear.

According to this rationale constituting the foundation of
capitalism, each ‘individual’ - be it a human being or a company or a
nation- should only fight for its own development. Everyone should
produce the best possible and fully compete with the others. Thus
competent manufacturers survive while the weak and the insufficient
disappear. Hence the most "productive" production model and therefore
the most productive world will be formed. This is called capitalism if
practiced within a country, and global capitalism if practiced between
countries by the elimination of the customs borders. The duration
leading to this consequence is globalism.

John D. Rockefeller was America's biggest
capitalist ever. At the same time, he was one of the most
enthusiastic supporters of the theory of evolution. Following
him, many capitalists went on to support the theory of
evolution. Most of the "scientific" researches conducted for the
purpose of proving evolution were financed by these big
capitalists. Because these people were well aware that the
capitalist world system governed by themselves could only find a
"scientific" justification thanks to evolution. The ruthless
notion of competition which constituted the foundation of
capitalism was reinforced by the theory of the "survival of the
fittest".

Of course, the capitalist mentality adapting the concept of "struggle
to live" asserted by Darwin to be existent in nature feels no ethical
responsibility for the "disappearance of the weak". It even rejects all
kinds of communal assistance and justice like helping the weak or taking
care of the poor. According to Tille, the most famous of those who
expressed the Darwinist-capitalist thought, to help out the "defeated
classes" and inhibiting poverty is a great fault as it means to stop the
natural selection law which provides for the evolution.

According to the American professor E.A. Ross, the famous
theoretician of social Darwinism, "the christian cult of charity as a
means of grace has formed a shelter under which idiots and cretins have
crept and bred. The state gathers the deaf mutes into its sheltering
arm, and a race of deaf mutes is in process of for motion". According to
Ross who opposes all these because they prevent the natural evolutional
development, "the shortest way to make this world a heaven is to let
those so inclined hurry hell-ward at their own pace."

The most dramatic of all is that these ideas are not
misinterpretations of Darwinism but Darwinism itself. As it is stressed
in the book of Benjamin Franklin named as What Darwin Really Said,
"the argument legalizing the weak being eliminated by th strong in human
society".

This is why Darwinism lays the philosophical foundation of all the
capitalist economic systems and political regimes shaped by them. The
capitalist ethic which maintains the inequalities between people and
even provide to enlarge them for the benefit of the strong, structures
its biological basis on Darwinism. It is very natural to support
Darwinism for those who want to use the fortune they have made to
satisfy their own greed, ignore the poor, and justify all they have
done.

It is very noteworthy that those who give the greatest verbal and
financial aid to Darwinism in U.S.A. are capitalist dynasties like
Rockefeller and Carnegie. The foundations established by these two
dynasties, the Rockefeller Foundation and Carnegie Institution, have
given very large sum of financial support for researches on evolution.
Michael A.Cremo and Richard L.Thompson recount in their books The
Hidden History of Human Race that the Carnegie Institution intents
the victory of scientific cosmological vision which claims to replace
old religious cosmologies. Rockefeller Foundation also gives support to
materialist cosmology and serves to the mission of developing modern
civilizations which tries to imprison the concepts of God and soul into
the world of mitology.

It is not quite difficult to understand the reason: since capitalism
is based on a philosophy esteeming merely the matter and assuming the
human being to be "the creator of his own fate", it can not maintain its
existence in a community accepting the ethics of the Providential
religions. The most "scientific" way to combat with this sense of ethics
is to support the theory of evolution. In our age in which capitalism
has acquired a global sovereignty, the theory of evolution is an
important part of the ‘global official ideology’ because of that reason.
Global lies again need global lies to be able to maintain their
existence.

Progress and Progressivism

When we closely look at the expressions of those who want to exclude or
remove religion from the social life, we can read between the lines a
basic thought expressed by different sentences.

These barren statements starting with such clichés as "We have
reached the 2000s, we are in the age of computers and Internet, men have
stepped on the moon..." and continuing with such suggestions as "we must
be modern, harmonize with the age, not be left behind the times...",
always lead to the same conclusion. Since we live in a very "advanced"
age, we should not pay very much attention to the "rules and principals
foreordained hundreds of years ago", or else, we should at least revise
them according to the so-called "advanced" age we live in.

Briefly, this common thought basically relies on the supposition that
religious sources (that is, divine inspiration) are outdated and cannot
explain the "advanced" age we are in.

At the heart of this mentality lies the supposition that people
living in our age are intellectually more developed and modern than
those that have lived hundreds or thousands of years ago. This mentality
leads to the conclusion that the society addressed by the revered books
- Old Testament, New Testament and the Kor'an - on which the
Providential religions are based are intellectually backward, that is,
less smart than the modern man. This thought implies two arguments, one
more moderate than the other.

The first and the more radical one belongs to those who
straightforwardly repudiate the holy books to be divine revelations.
These allege that the holy books are directly written by the prophets to
whom they are revealed and that they do not have any divine roots. In
this case the thought of ‘advanced age-inferior age’ becomes very
serviceable for them by which they can claim that the prophets were
"backwards" than the modern man just like the other members of the
"unenlightened" society they lived in. Therefore they claim that those
books can in no way address the "advanced society" of the modern age as
they are products of the age they are produced in.

The second and seemingly the more moderate - yet more contradicting -
argument, belong to those who do not honestly confess their hesitations
about the holy books. These accept that the Koran, New Testament or the
Old Testament are divine revelations, yet think that they appeal only to
those they are revealed to because they also believe in the concept of
"progression" we have described above. Hence they assume that the modern
societies which are mentally more progressed than the old societies have
"surpassed and left behind" the contents of the divine books.

As a result of all these, a standardized terminology has developed;
Those who wish to comply with the holy books completely and thoroughly
are defined as "conservative". Those who reject these books or consider
them as "outdated" are called "progressivists". For those who employ the
terminology, to be "conservative" is the biggest vice whereas being
"progressivist" is the biggest virtue.

All of these "progressivist literature" relies on the fallacy of
"evolution of the human mind" which was advanced by Darwin and then
attempted to be proven by numerous evolutionists after him, but has
always turned out to be a fiasco.

The main preconception of this fallacy is that the human mind is a
product of the tools he uses. Just as it is the human mind which creates
the tool, it is as well the tool which creates the mind! According to
this, "primitive man" has started to use the first tool made up of stone
(for example a stone with a sharp edge), then faced difficulties while
using it and these difficulties forced him to use his mind and
consequently his mind has improved. It is accepted that each tool
started to be used by man helps to improve his mind further.

Today those who speak of "progressivism" and utter stereo-typed
statements such as "why should we be bound by the rules of fourteen
centuries ago at the computer age" actually rely on the assertion of
"the evolution of the human mind through tools". While speaking of the
"computer age", they actually mean that the sophisticated instrument of
computer and the stages that led to it have refined the man's mind.
Hence, the modern man using computer or other sophisticated devices is
considered to be smarter than the man of the old ages - therefore surely
than the prophets and his followers - who did not use such devices.

Due to of the master-card of "progressivism", evolutionists starting
from Darwin worked hard to prove the theory of "mental evolution through
tools". As noted above, each time and always they ended up with a
fiasco. The main method they employed to prove this so-called mental
evolution, was the correlation of the intelligence of the person and the
volume of his skull. As the skull volume of the monkeys were much
smaller than the humans, it could be asserted that the tools used by man
had forced him to improve his mental capacity and thus his skull volume
was enlarged. This is what has inspired the skull development charts
stretching from the ordinary monkeys to ordinary man and seeking to fill
up the big gap between them with various forgeries and distortions. We
had examined in depth the inside story of those in the first part of the
book.

One of the most radical defenders of the evolution of man’s mind
through tools was the French evolutionist anthropologist Paul Broca.
Holding the belief that "primitive tribes had smaller brain volumes due
to their intellectual backwardness", Broca claimed that European
civilizations had attained greater brain volumes because of the
"advanced civilization" they have developed. He dated the turning point
of this "advanced European civilization" back to the 12th century. He
began to dig the cemeteries in Paris to find how much "the brain volume
of the Europeans have increased" between the 12th and the 19th
centuries. He assumed that the average volume of the skulls of the
corpses buried in the 12th century would be significantly less than
those buried in the 19th century. However, despite all his efforts, he
ended up with a complete failure; The average 1426 cc. of the 12th
century decreased to 1409 cc. in the 18th century and increased to 1462
in the 19th century. Yet a simple calculation showed that the varying
averages were a result of natural statistical differences.

Briefly, the theory that the tools used developed the human mind and
therefore technically advanced civilizations had also intellectually
advanced minds was never proven to be true.